Libertarian Ideology: Keep Women in the Kitchen

it’s sis story i’ve been following uh… at really fascinating conversation uh… about about it’s about libertarians and birth control and uh… this has been going on because
of course uh… rick santorum this is in the news because the o bomb
administration announced i guess it was two weeks ago as part of the affordable care act health insurance companies were now uh… forced to provide birth control as one of the drugs that
they cover contraception and this uh… created a big outcry from
religious organizations because although they are exempted from
uh… churches if you employ people at your church your temple or you’re
strictly really just religious institution you are exempt if you are a religious organization and
operate and other type of institution the hospital uh… then eight you are obligated to uh… your insurance companies obligated to
provide and uh… the bishops i didn’t like this because it’s against
their conscience so they’ll bomb it ministration forged a compromise wherein they would
not have to pay for it insurance companies would simply have to
provide it for free and uh… eat those costs which in the end the probably saves the
insurance companies money anyways because of all the health related uh… cost that they would avoid because there are millions of women who take birth control to uh… uh… to deal with the other health related issues that have nothing
to do in fact with with birth control so you take contraceptive ah… pills
because it also has other uh… facts that are helpful for certain uh… problems now the
republicans were not satisfied with that nor were the bishops to my understanding and they are now saying that all businesses republicans are pushing a bill that would allow all employers and insurance companies to pick and choose what they’re going to offer in terms of prescription curd care based upon their moral convictions so if u let’s say don’t like with that people and they need uh… some drugs to deal
with uh… will be city problems uh… then you could just simply denied
them based on that if u if you don’t think that anybody should be taking any
type of medicine you could deny them prescription uh…
care um… digital light screening purser dan cancers because is morally just don’t think that people
should be screened for stuff deal with it his euro moral conviction about being and so their this has created an interesting
conversation online that um… was on a of this weekend at virtually
speaking which uh… i’ve been on on the past it’s a j ackroyd uh… uh… does show that came out of second
life which is a online virtual world uh… but it’s a it’s essentially a
podcast and a uh… political talk show and ed did be picked up on this and in the context of talking about
libertarians and ron paul there’s been some portion is t how is it
that libertarians can reconcile their issues uh… their their notion
that government should should not be involved at all he in that people’s personal lives yet someone like uh… ron pohl of believes that a uh… woman
should not have a tommy over our own body indecision of of uh… uh… abortion uh… other reproductive choices that one might make and digby i guess i had this conversation with a
corey robin who was on this program who was talking about the conservative
ideology uh… we had a a him on this program to
to talk about his ebook and the idea that um… the conservative ideology of course puts private property and a system where property rights and uh… trumps all and so uh… my concept of that uh… reich pon was uh… leapt into with very good mock bond
needs is writing to find the bases in which in many respects anant and we have
talked about this how this works with uh… with uh… civil liberties in one of the
implications of having property rights overall aids if you will as a uh… as an organizing principle in society we know rand paul has said explicitly them we
know implicitly uh… many libertarians won’t talk about
this because they consider it settled law now of course abortion rights are not settled law in the mind of a libertarian uh… because they want to still
relitigate that however the civil rights act is that a while so they try and avoid
this question but weren’t up to a libertarian if you owned a restaurant it would be perfectly within your
purview though you sir herbal white people to deny but say
black people a seat at the counter and of course the market we take care of
this theoretically people would just not adobe a restaurant
because they don’t like the fact that you uh… didn’t like black people and
wouldn’t serve them in the restaurant in the marketplace would sort it all out ultimately when you dig down into a
libertarian philosophy it essentially says those with money and power have a higher standing in society by virtue the fact that they have money
in power and as uh… we had uh… was a uh… see e andrew chef peter shows brother colin say like that
is the way society works if it if you don’t have access to certain
things you don’t have access to it if you have a lower paying job in your
necessarily probably deserve it and uh… that’s the way society will
organize and if you can’t afford health care
young for health care you know you that’s just though the way
the ball bounces you die in the streets and on the streets so mike concept or whatever or did bomb on the suggestion of corey robbins dot
into livid ma of un muses and specifically his nineteen twenty two
twenty-two book socialism to look at uh… this talk like a free
love and how it’s so problematic now what does free love me free love means having sex without cost of getting pregnant from and it’s always free we understand that right men have always have free love uh… but women need sexually contraception to not have free right should say to have free love and missus rights is a again from ready
bomb proposals to transform the relationship
relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plants for the socialization of the means of
production marriage is to disappear along with
private property free love also means that you can have sex without being
married socialism promises not only welfare well for all but universal happiness in love as well by making the wife uh… akan school
says by making the wife and equal of the husband it is only a matter of time until the worker seeks to be the equal
of the boss and sex itself really shared among
consenting equals how can we maintain the idea of private
property you understand what news is is saying here so far as in this is a quote so far as
feminism seeks to adjust the legal position of women of a woman to doubt of men so far as it seeks to
offer her legal in economic freedom to develop an act in accordance with her
inclinations desires in economic circumstances so far it is nothing more then a branch of the great liberal
movement which advocates peaceful in free evolution when going by beyond this it attacks the institutions of social
life under the impression that it will bus be able to remove the
natural barriers what are the natural barriers that one man and woman for nick eight
the woman gets pregnant mazes sees this as a natural barrier that women just happens to becoming economic equals with men because once you were a bit this natural barrier of them having to get pregnant and having to care for the baby than what they can do is go out in her
own money like a man this is on natural so in the same way that free markets
exist in nature so too does a woman’s uh… my word handicap in the marketplace and a handicap a courses that they could
get pregnant and have a baby now in make sure this is not a handicap for
society it’s simply a handicap that a woman has in the context of the market and he says this is a spiritual child of
socialism ford is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of on all trouble fax of
nature this being that they will man’s role is
to squeeze out babies in care for them and to endeavour he writes by reforming
these institutions to reform the nature the socialistic society abolish is the
economic dependence of the woman which results from the fact that woman
is dependent on the income of her husband right sneezes man and woman have the same economic rights in the
same duties as far as motherhood does not demand special consideration for the
woman you see that public funds provide for the maintenance
addict an education of the children which are no longer the affair of the
parents but a society dust the relationship
between the sexes are no longer influenced by social and economic
conditions this is problematic because according to news is it is attempting to alter dion alter bowl fax of nature he writes just as the studio democratic movement endeavors by decrees to a face
natural and socially conditioned inequalities these are just that’s just that ladies these are natural and social lee
conditioned inequalities led with it just says it wants to make the strong
equal to the week the talented to the un tele did is you
know it’s just if you’re on talented you lose buses playdates if your week use that’s just the way it is if you’re a woman you gotta have babies and you take care of the kids and that’s
just the way it is these things cannot and should not be
altered so the radical wing of the women’s
movement seeks to make women the equal of men but the difference between sexual
character in sexual testing me can no more of the decree it away other inequalities of mankind do you know whatever it is deal with it ladies and so the debate goes on in uh… this
post by uh… raw ready bomb in the comments section one comment to rights well no uh… mazes didn’t have a problem with
this zero with the spread and progress of
capitalism birth control becomes universal practice however it which implies of course the news is
accepts birth control as a uh… uh… legitimate device i guess that can be employed by women but robin corey robin jumps into the
comments actions and responds with a nother quote from eases uh… which says in the market economy
every individual spontaneously intent upon not be getting children whom he could not rear without
considerably lowering his family standard of life in other words birth control is legitimate if the man decides we can’t afford any
more kids but if the woman uses birth control as a means in which to alter the fax of nature and allow her to be competitive in the market that’s problematic ’cause it’s just what nature decreed uh… robin goes on in the uh…
comments to quote me is again her destiny this is
speaking of the woman is completely circumscribed by sex woman must exhaust yourself as lover and
as mother in the service of the sexual instinct i happen to agree with part uh… doesn’t go over so well at home but uh… and the stack of musical left and and the
kids bedside table just seem to be exco
untouched it is not marriage which keeps woman
inwardly on fri but the fact that her sexual character demand surrender to a man because if you were she did too uh… renounce this it would entail woman quote renouncing
either the most profound womanly joy the joy of motherhood for the sake of the more masculine
development of her personality which of course would be uh… to go work and compete with men in the uh… marketplace uh… so those you see how the libertarian philosophy uh… essentially can bring itself to saying that there’s unalterable
things you know it at the end of the day we know what the libertarian philosophy
is it is simply anyway in which to protect those who already have power and uh… we were r reporting manager the recorder on really
lays this out that the conservative fall-off sophy the conservative ideology
is one in which always seeks to maintain the status quo and merely reacts against any type of a
man subpoena she movement that crops up and make no mistake about it birth control contraception particularly ones that can be taken and controlled by women has had and he immediately mets but or a
uh… effect on one but to a libertarian this is altering
that which nature has uh… decreed and in other words god knew what he was
doing when he said uh… when god i think i’m not sure which
commandment this is something about like a woman supposed to be barefoot naked in
the kitchen or implied and height i don’t know if that’s the actual
translation from the sanskrit i think in the sanskrit it was uh… by the court cuz i don’t think they had kitchens at
the time it was just like you gotta be near the fired cooking and
stuff

Correct. But the whole "corporations aren't people" argument tends to be used to curtail speech or other right. Too often this kind of debate seems to lead to that sort of thing, which I gather you would not be in favor of.

Groups do not have any more rights than individuals do, but you do not lose your rights (ie speech, religion, property) just because you join a group.

What keeps the contract agency from working with the vendors in order to generate more revenue? If I were to do a business deal with one of these vendors I need to look at their reputation and the contract agency's reputation. It's like dealing with a Russian company in Russia, only it's not really a company it's a partnership where only the people involved with the product are liable and the amount of liability is defined by Russia. It sounds as though this could just confuse the consumer.

One word again my friend competition, there will be very few to no monopoly's, unlike when you have a government to dole out special benefits. I would be more worried about monopolies WITH government than without. No one wants to use a contract agency that favors business or is in bed with business, no one wants to buy from a company that rips off their customers. There will always be people trying to take advantage of a system, but without centralized power ie government it's harder.

The current system of government gives the people voting power to decide the minimum quality that a product or service can be so that injury does not occur. The system where there are contract agencies does not appear to give the people the ability to decide. It lends itself to a system where the lowest controls are always chosen. This is private sector authoritarianism. The people are forced into a market with ambiguous controls, it makes it confusing to the consumer and could result in injury.

Sorry not buying the whole "giving the people voting power" that's just not how that works. The only way we vote for quality effectively is with our dollar and with a completely free market that power will only double. And people that use their money for political power will see their power dissolve. They will have to cater to the consumer to actually get paid they will have to provide a service and if the consumer does not like that service or product he or she has the freedom to change habit.

There is a certain balance between public sector authoritarianism and private sector authoritarianism that provides maximum liberty to the people. If you go too far in either direction the result is a decrease in liberty. The private sector could go authoritarian in this situation as well, when new products or services are created the new customers can be violated easier than the purchasers of older products with a longer history. It can make it hard to start a company.

Also let me ask you, if you had a small business lets say selling computers. What would stop you from putting a bad Power supply unit in the computer? The simple fact that you want to stay in business and not do harm their computer! Also if there is a trend of return policy you do not want to have to jeopardize all of that inventory. The market in itself, "controls" people. People do not need to be "controlled". I do not need to be controlled and regulated. Neither do any of my private affairs.

This example is fine for a market with high competition. A market with low competition due to physical distance, low resources, or intellectual property has the ability to create a situation where the vendor can violate the consumer with minimal liability.

Yes and don't you think the government helps the situation? Without the regulations that keep small business down we could hinder growth? I wouldn't see how that is logical. Considering how much regulations hurt small business and business in America in general. We would have more resources since people wouldn't be taxed almost a third of their income every month, fighting wars that lead to blow back and the violation of rights. If you haven't already check Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.

I'm not arguing that the government controls are too high or too low. I don't know all of the controls available or how they're implemented, I'm not a business owner. What I'm trying to do is determine if your solution to public sector authoritarianism is libertarian or just private sector authoritarian, which is just as bad.

Markets don't breed authoritarian nature, authoritarian individuals do, where do you think they go? Government. But with no government you don't have any centralized tax collector to do your bidding with. When people learn more about the free market and anarchy the more it makes sense. We can find a better way of doing things than the primitive idea of ruling others. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Stefan Molyneux, Adam Vs The Man. Those are my references :). Been fun.

What you're arguing is to abolish the govt and replace it with contract agencies that compete with each other. The contract agencies determine the amount of liability of the corporations. This is not much different than today with our state governments, however, it appears voting rights are taken away from the people. Although that doesn't matter because the contract agencies only have authority when one buys a product or service.

There are many more issues I would have with replacing govt with contract agencies especially regarding civil violations. How does one exact equal force on a violator without the govt? How does one sue someone for fraud? I agree that government can be authoritarian, it has in the past. Although, I still cannot agree that a lack of government is any less authoritarian.

Voting rights taken away… No one needs to vote because voting is only literally stealing from one group to give to another. My references are there, they can explain it in a little more detail and give you a better sense of a free society. Don't get started on equality… please government has failed miserably at that. Slaves weren't slaves because there wasn't a government they were slaves because there was. Slaves were slaves because the south enforced the runaway slave laws.

Again, to sit here and have two enthusiasts think of every single solution for everything is an argument for authoritarianism. Refer to them for more philosophical info you won't be disappointed. /watch?v=ZaO6Km6zV00

I'm sorry, but clearly you're misinformed as to the philosophy of Libertarians. Libertarians do not base their philosophy on writings, but on principles. Namely, the non-aggression principle and on voluntarism.

As far as the fantasy bit, that's utter nonsense. "Progressives" live in a fantasy world where government solves problems, as opposed to the reality where it creates them.

"Liberals" find suppression and coercion where none exists, and ignore it where it does.

no.
Libertarians base their philosophy in the axiom of non aggression: which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate.

That's it.
You are going to find conservative libertarians, in the social sense… and you are going to find more how could I say … liberal(haha) libertarians too.

My wife stays in the kitchens because we have 5 children and I can make 3 times more money them her. And we don't want to see our children to be indoctrinated by the state.
Brazilian atheist libertarian

An easier way to explain this is to realize in the United States we all agree with maximizing liberty equally throughout the population. There are four different methods to achieve this utilizing social and fiscal controls. Liberals believe in high fiscal and low social controls, Conservatives believe in high social and low fiscal controls, authoritarians believe in high fiscal and high social controls, libertarians believe in low fiscal and low social controls. It's an opinion, no one is wrong.

Actually many libertarians are pro life, and whats so wrong with people being responsible for themselves? Helping others in life fulfills me and I could help a lot more people if I did not have to pay taxes for wars, big corporate bank bailouts, and many other wasteful government spending resulting in over 16 trillion dollars in debt. Comparing all Libertarians to one guy is like saying all democrats cheat on their wives COUGH clinton COUGH. in a free market we could actually get a head in life

we already have laws to protect us from such things. The best regulator is the free market always has been always will be. Many so called "regulations" are actually put in place by big corporations to make it easier for them to stay on top and hinder upcoming businesses. Do some research

Well, Ludwig von Mises is considered by libertarians and historians to be the Father of Libertarianism. Besides, if you knew your history, the Democrats in the time of slave ownership were almost all in the South, rather than the progressive, urban North. Now, the reason the demographics in party shifted so much was due to adoption of progressive ideology in the 1930s and the divide over the pending Civil Rights Movement.

Big government is top down tyranny controlled by few people and that's what we have right now. To start up your own business you have to jump through a hundred hoops and pay extra cost due to a massive amount of regulations. The corporations love the regulations and many times are the ones responsible for putting them in place. because of this its extremely difficult for NEW businesses to compete.
watch?v=C1B_1VDyQU0&list=LLkLSt_ySJm81b2PB7Z9F9QQ

Lol a libertarian ideology wouldn't be to "keep women in the kitchen" a libertarian ideology would be "if a woman wants to stay in the kitchen then she has the individual right to do so." Liberals need to understand that some women actually prefer staying home and raising children and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they have other options

Market = wealth for everyone and regulation means oppression. Look at all the countries with huge governments e.g Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and North Korea, just to name a few. Than look at at countries with smaller governments. Try to start a business in America today, it will take you on average from two to three years. Regulating is the status quo, not Libertarianism. In a free market society, it is impossible for a few people to control everything. Only big governments can do that.

"Libertarians and birth control, Rich Santorum" Yeah, Rich Santorum is NOT a Libertarian. He does NOT run as a Libertarian and further more he does NOT follow any of the Libertarian principals. @4:20 when you talk about abortion, Ron Paul believes that fetuses are citizens and should have full protection under the law. I disagree with him but if you believe that is a person you shouldn't let people legally murder them because they have a right to Life.

I think you get more views using the word Libertarian. But really all you talk about is republicans. "Republican Ideology: Keep Women in the Kitchen" should have been your title. To be honest there are only 2 libertarians in congress Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul and between the Liberals (like youself) and the Neo-conservites you have kicked them out of office and then stand back and wonder why congress can't make a deal or where all you freedoms went?

Yes, as a Libertarian myself, that's the ONE thing about Ron Paul that I don't like. He is consistently libertarian – except when it comes to the issue of abortion.

His position came from his years as a OB-GYN, delivering 1,000 of babies. Once, he accidentally observed a late-term abortion, the injured baby was still screaming and breathing when they tossed it away.

Although I am pro-choice, I give Ron Paul a pass on this issue because he has spoken out so strongly against war and the Fed.

Yes, I'm a WHITE MALE LIBERTARIAN – and I LOVE IT! Have no white guilt at all, thank you very much!

Now, if you had read my comment, you'd notice that I'm also pro-choice as are 90% of most libertarians. I like Ron Paul because he's anti-war (unlike liberal icons like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who all vote FOR war)

Saying you're pro-choice when you "give a pass" to a candidate who seeks to take away women's control over their own bodies is kind of like saying you're not racist, but you're willing to "give a pass" on owning slaves.

If you dont feel guilt wrt how your privileged position means you don't have to give a fuck about anyone else, why are you defensive when someone calls you out on your selfishness?

When you give someone a pass for pushing anti-choice legislation, you're saying you don't give a fuck about women. When you give a pass on pushing terrible legislation that negatively affects others but doesn't directly affect you, you're saying you don't give a fuck about anyone else.

Want to know why your comparison between anti-choicers and vegetarians/pacifists makes no sense? Because vegetarians and pacifists aren't trying to take away people's right to control their own bodies.

I guess you're at the "oh, can't respond to her actual comment because I'm full of shit, so I'll just start ranting about the democrats and hope for the best" stage of what passes as an argument for you. It's funny how you can only defend yourself by saying that other politicians do horrible things too, and hope that I support Obama so that you can catch me up in some hypocrisy.

For someone who totally doesn't feel guilty for being a selfish ass/libertarian, you sure are scrambling a lot.

It's irrelevant. Because my vote does not change that you choose to help revoke women's ability to control their bodies because that's nbd to you. And even if you wanted to tear apart my personal beliefs, that wouldn't make me wrong about how selfish and sexist you are. You're trying to deflect the issue because you know you're wrong, and you're asking for my help so you can make a tu quoque argument to derail the issue. Pass.

Here's something liberals need to understand, so pay close attention: Just because you have the RIGHT to do so something (i.e. take a birth control pill, have an abortion, smoke pot, whatever) doesn't mean that other people are obligated to pay for it!

That's like accusing someone of censorship – just cause he won't BUY you the book that you want to read!

Okay, here's my last word: You're a coward too afraid to debate. Look back at all your comments and reread them – you've failed to answer even one of my questions although I've been 100% upfront and honest about myself.

You love to criticize and call names – like a child does – but won't engage in adult discussion. Go ahead and have that conversation with your dog, I'm pretty sure you're evenly matched.

Denying people ANYTHING is NOT a Libertarian ideology. Learn what we stand for before posting false accusations. We are about the freedom of choice, not some other unintelligent nitwit dictating what anyone chooses to do. Our real ideology is that if your not hurting or harming anyone your not doing anything wrong. But in the USA we have so many people that have become pathetic thoughtless losers with no true purpose in life that fall into useless positions that create these kind of bs topics.

Sam wants the government to take care of him because he has no skills, no brain and needs to be taken care of. In a truly free country Sam would be in some dark alley offering to suck dicks to make his meager existence in life. Yet if he believes in socialism, and that the government and the people OWE him a job and a house for absolutely nothing in life, then that makes him feel better, and more important.

This guy is such a tool, I can't even… I've somehow managed the intestinal fortitude to sit through a few of these videos – mostly claiming to "crush" libertarians – and have found nothing of value. His ramblings are laced with fallacies and flawed logic. His failure to grasp something as simple libertarian philosophy is astounding, given the amount of time he spends talking to (read: over) them. "People with money and power blah blah blah…" What power? It is people like you, Sam Seder, that want to empower a few to run the lives of everyone, granting privilege to the well-connected and protecting the profits of entrenched companies.

I would like to point something out. The subset of libertarians like Mises & his followers, mostly associated with The Mises Institute, that consider themselves libertarians, while also incorporating traditional Christian conservative values into their core world view are a very very small subset of the wider libertarian movement. They can seem like a dominant part of libertarianism since the Tea Party movement put a handful of these people into positions of political influence a few years ago. But in terms of how much of the broader libertarian movement these far-right evangelical Christian (Tea Party) libertarians make up it's a tiny fraction

Riiight, Mises and Ron Paul and the libertardian PANSIES who are afraid to fight and of violence believe in "natural order". Then why fund the police? Just fight the thugs yourself! OHHHH….riiiight….that wouldn't benefit YOU. This is nothing more than a bunch of selfish pussies trying to gain power with money. What a bunch of jokers.

i find the phrase so odd "the woman gets pregnant"no. the man is legally obligated to take care of the child….so yeah….the couple gets pregnant. biologically the fetus develops inside a space in the womans body, but the man isnt free of it. a man cannot say "i choose not to be a parent" after conception…..

i find the liberals conservatives and libertarians in usa to be quite weird…..specially the libertarians….

Just as the libertarians endorse authoritarianism in the work place, they also endorse authoritarian relationships between men, women, and the family. Bosses dominate workers while husbands dominate wives and parents dominate children.

Male workers must sacrifice their lives and identities for the boss while women must sacrifice their lives and identities for the sake of childbirth and child rearing. That is the libertarian duality.

It's still not actually free. They still have to go to a doctor and get a prescription. So you have to pay for that visit (copay or deductible depending on how your insurance is structured).

Most employers are happy to have their employees on birth control – it means they don't need to worry about their employees needing maternity leave. And maternity care, as well as infant/child healthcare, is extremely expensive – so insurance companies are happy to offer birth control as well.

I know this is an old video but isn't it odd that recently Speaker Ryan blamed the current economical problems on women not having enough babies to add to the "work force." He said "I did my part. Now it's your turn." Not acknowledging the obvious sexist insult this is but also he got rid of lots of tax deductibles for low income families. Deductibles for daycare, school, food, and health. All gone to make an extra buck to the wealthy such as Paul Ryan so he has the financial means to properly raise kids since he isn't getting higher taxes.. but the majority of low income and middle class get higher taxes without helpful deductibles.. they need to have more children to help the economy. Fuck off 🌶️

There's a million and one things that humans do that are considered unnatural. Going to the moon, eyeglasses, central heating, GMOs, television. Why should humans respect any of these "natural barriers" any less than they respect the natural barrier that contraception helps overcome?

Why do none of these people who say you can't change nature don't get rid of their clothing, stop cutting their hair, live in caves, no cars or other modern transportation, and have no air conditioning or heat etc? Throw out their TVs, radio, computers, all of it, and go back to living in a cave with a club?

Men if the job tasks are that both can do equally ( with training patience etc) , like cooking , then not sure WHO THE HELL YOU ARE THAT TELLS WOMEN ??? Actually , it's men who seem to clog things up hence mom's. How boring. NO BIRTH CO TROL. YOU BE JERKING OFF TIL THAT JUNK FALLS OOF !! Take pics ….Once women learn men not getting sex is the basis for what they spew, how they think, mire will be choose who they sleep wirh or relate to..I don't want a bf who giggles.

If I don't want to cook, why shouldn't you. THESE ARE LAZY TIT SUCKING MEN, WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY RULE. HOW CUTE ARE YOU. Aids YOU who need to slave away at home and let the smart people wirh no dicks bring home the bacon.